Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School. I have a BS in Economics from Auburn University and am working on my MS in Economics at Portland State University. This is my fifth year judging. I'm a flow judge. I judge the round based almost purely off of what is left on the flow after final focus. This means that I value clear voters and good line by line very highly.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. Any points made in crossfire must be brought up in a speech for me to weigh it in the round. If debaters are rude during crossfire it will be reflected in their speaker points.

Evidence: If debaters cannot produce evidence in less than a minute, I assume that they do not have the card. I will ask for cards after the round if I am not clear on the intentions of the author or believe that the card was miscut.

I am a former PF debater and a current PF/LD coach. I have a degree in Communication Studies with a specialization in rhetoric, therefore, I put a lot of emphasis on logos, ethos, and pathos in a round. Eye contact, good body language, and a generally positive demeanor go a long way with me-- debate is fun and you should enjoy these experiences. I do not approve of spreading (especially just to seem competitive or because you think it's what you're supposed to do) because when debaters spread, they tend to lose sight of the persuasive nature of the debate as an activity and an exercise in professionalism. I am a flow judge so please be sure to extend arguments thoughtfully (e.g. don't tell me to extend an argument without any logic behind it). Signposting and off-time roadmaps are really helpful for me as a judge since I do refer to the flow quite a bit for judging purposes.

I am a former Public Forum debater from Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, AL, where I competed for four years. My biggest requirement for a round is that all debaters are civil and that you use your time to not only address your opponents but also to appropriately incorporate your judge into the round (e.g. make good eye contact, tell me why I should vote for you, etc).

Be mindful of your time limits for each part of the round - time yourselves but not your opponents. If you ask to see someone else's evidence, then you can do that using your prep time following a speech or crossfire. Crossfires are also a time to ask and answer questions, not just make statements or present new evidence. Make sure that you're also asking appropriate questions, not loaded questions or any that begin with "Do you agree...".

When you speak, I'm fine with speed but not spreading, so please make sure to watch just how fast you speak. I also expect for all debaters to provide internal links for their contentions and subsequent evidence; I shouldn't have to consider how to connect your arguments and evidence, it should be provided to me. And make sure that you're using your speech time appropriately; for example, a summary speech should not be a second rebuttal but should actually summarize the main points of the round.

Katelyn Dodd, Vanderbilt University, Class of 2015

I coordinate a middle school debate league, but am relatively new to judging high school PF debate. Please no spreading. I appreciate well-organized and warranted arguments.

I am a second year Public Forum coach with the SpeakFirst team in Birmingham, Alabama.

In terms of speed, you can speak as fast as you'd like, but not so fast that I can't catch your contention taglines for my flow. I prefer well-organized constructives with sign posting and clear impacts. For weighing, I'd ideally like to be told how to weigh the round and not left to decide that for myself. I don't like getting into long framework battles, so if it comes to that it's better to concede to one framework or the other and show how you're winning on it.

I'm okay with off time roadmaps before rebuttal and summary as long as you have a reason for giving one, and I don't care if you sit or stand during crossfire as long as both sides do the same thing. I'll flow everything but crossfire. I'll only hold dropped arguments against you if they're extended by your opponent in summary.

I expect each side to keep their own time, but I'll be keeping it too with the exception of calling for cards - if you're calling for a card, please keep track and just tell me how much of your prep you used. Please don't vocally keep your opponent's time. Also, please don't talk/whisper to your partner during one of your opponent's speeches. Bottom line, be respectful and have fun!

I debated Policy for 6 years (2014-2020), so I’m pretty much fine with anything. Also did some PF and LD. I’ve also been out of debate for a few years though and have little topic knowledge. Don’t be offensive. I mostly read topical affs and was predominantly policy debater on the neg. I am fine and familiar with Kritiks, but it wasn’t my go to 2NR strategy. I love T debate and theory, but that very much does not mean RVIs or tricks, which I will generally not vote on.

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, not before.

Add me to the Email Chain: beh2024@stanford.edu

Email: willhaynes11@gmail.com

Background: I debated for four years at Spain Park High School in Hoover, AL: national circuit LD my first two years and national circuit PF for the remainder. I recently graduated from Auburn University with a BS in Biomedical Sciences and minors in Spanish and Philosophy. I am currently a first year medical student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. I spent 4 years coaching and judging PF for Auburn High School, mostly on the local Alabama circuit.

Lincoln-Douglass Paradigm

I typically judge PF, but as I stated above, do have experience debating circuit LD. Therefore, I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you would like to debate. Traditional is probably your safest bet, but I'm not going to disregard your arguments because they are too progressive. Just recognize that since I am a PF coach, I may not evaluate all of your arguments in the same way as an LD circuit judge would.

Flow/Speed: I am a standard flow judge. I can tolerate a brisk pace, but please do not spread.

Theory: I'm good with anything you would like to run. Competing interps>reasonability

K's: I don't particularly like K's. I'm most sympathetic to K's that are using the round to make structural change within the debate community.

Framework: Feel free to run any fun/interesting/non-standard criterions as long as you provide solid justifications.

Public Forum Paradigm

Flow/Speed: I am a typical flow judge. In rebuttals and summaries, please make it clear what argument you're responding to. All turns must be addressed in the following speech, so if you are the second speaker, and your opponent makes a case turn in their rebuttal, you must address it in your rebuttal or else it is dropped. Frontlining can be done in either the rebuttal or summary. I can flow 8/10 on speed. Do not spread. The summary and final focus must be consistent.

Evidence: I will call for cards at the end of the round if I am unclear on the intentions of the author or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut. I will not call for evidence due to washes or lack of weighing.

Crossfire: I do not flow new arguments in crossfire, nor does it have any effect in how I judge the round unless someone is rude, in which case I will deduct speaker points.

Framework: I default to CBA unless another empirically justified framework is offered at the top of the constructive. I enjoy a good framework debate, so do not hesitate to propose a deontological value.

Offense: Under CBA, I only weigh quantifiable and empirically justified impacts as offense. If you do not quantify, there is no objective way for me to compare impacts at the end of the debate.

Fiat: If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through Congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

Theory: I believe theory is the best way to correct abuse in a debate round. It is much easier for me to flow theory if it is run in the standard format (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters), but I am fine with paragraph theory as long as it is clear and well justified.

Kritiks: I very rarely vote for them, mainly just because I don't believe PF is the most conducive for such arguments so just keep that in mind before you take that risk.

Presumption: In the event that the round ends up with a wash, I will default to the first speaking team.

I'm what my students call "flay." Be nice, be logical, speak clearly. I don’t like excessive terminology.

Experience: 2004 - Present - Speech and Debate director for Spain Park High School, Birmingham, AL

Events I Enjoy Coaching and Judging: Public Forum / Limited Lincoln Douglas / Most IE events

Major Concerns: If I call for a card and determine it is miscut, I will immediately drop your team. I will also report the violation to the tournament director and your coach or sponsor. All evidence should have a clearly defined DATE, author, and credentials. Sourcing on your card should be clear and wording of the text should not be altered. I should be quickly able to determine the veracity of the information presented in the round.

How I weigh PF: Standards should be clearly established. I find a framework at the top of the case useful. Please make an effort to argue your framework/standard. I will weigh all arguments based on the winning standard. Clearly compare both sides of the argument and explain why your side outweighs based on clear links to the framework. Deliver clear voters in the Final Focus. Usually, I only consider arguments cleanly extended through summary and final focus.

Kritiks/Counterplans/Theory in PF: Different tournaments have different rules on these matters. I will abide by the rules or philosophy in the tournament handbook. Public Forum should be accessible to a general audience. Please make certain that your arguments are comprehensible. If you feel like your opponent is running an argument which is unfair or against the rules, be prepared to define the violation and explain why to discount the argument in your rebuttal, summary, and final focus. If you are running these types of arguments, be prepared to establish why you are departing from the norms. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points.

Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

Speaker Points: Your level of courtesy is my primary concern here. BUT ALSO - Dress professionally. Be self-aware of your demeanor. Enunciate. Signpost your arguments/rebuttals. Each speech should have evidence of organization. Use all your time.